Contributors to this volume examine and illustrate struggles and collaborations among museums; festivals; tourism; and historic preservation projects and the communities they represent and serve. Essays include the role of museums in civil society; the history of African-American collections; and experiments with museum-community dialogue about the design of a multicultural society.
#1200787 in eBooks 1990-01-01 1990-01-01File Name: B00EIFPIQ4
Review
7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. James Winn brings a forgotten Monarch to lifeBy A CustomerThis book is why I majored in history in college. It is not enough to recite the dry bones facts of who did what and where. I want to know WHY people did what they did; and HOW events shape our modern times. James Anderson Winns book examines the life of Queen Anne of England (1665-1714) through the guise of music; paintings; and the theatre. I was very happy to see musical examples of composers that are more or less forgotten (Purcell certainly isnt!) and understand why art was so important in the late Stuart period.Winn masterfully weaves in the political history with his analysis of how art impacted Annes reign. We see Marlborough gushing after the success at Blenheim in 1704; and we see Anne lament the death of her son; the Duke of Glouchester; at the age of only 11. This book has all the elements of a fascinating story. Great characters; amazing events; and excitement all around. Highly recommended.1 of 3 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy Andrew-MeadCould not be happier5 of 5 people found the following review helpful. Weakened by an Unconvincing PremiseBy BethThis is a book that is firmly within the revisionist tradition of historical scholarship on the life and reign of Queen Anne. This revisionist view; best represented by Edward Greggs 1980 biography of the Queen; argues that; contrary to the popular stereotype of Anne as stupid and dull; she was a capable monarch who was fully engaged in the political events of her reign. James Anderson Winn fully endorses this revisionist interpretation of Queen Anne; but this book goes further than any prior revisionist account in claiming that Anne was not only a competent monarch but also had a deep love of the arts.There is much in this book that is impressive. Winns extensive knowledge of the literature and music of the period is on full display; and he makes some very interesting observations about the relationship between the arts and politics during Annes life and reign. However; the portions of the book dealing with Anne herself are much weaker. Winn in his introduction makes a number of sweeping claims about the extent of Annes artistic and intellectual accomplishments; but; when the time comes to substantiate these assertions; the evidence given is scant and much of it does not stand up to scrutiny. Winn cites instructions from Anne to her treasurer to "pay Mr. Baptist the money I desired you" as evidence that she was taking harpsichord lessons from the noted musician Giovanni Baptista Draghi. This can be merely an assumption; given that Anne specified no reason for the payment; but the existence of these lessons is thereafter treated as established fact (p. 186). Winn claims that Annabella Dives; a singer who received musical instruction from Henry Purcell; was "associated with Annes small court" as a princess in the 1690s. Buried in the endnote is the acknowledgement that this association had nothing to do with music; but consisted only in that Dives might have served Anne as a maid of honor in a capacity so "brief" and "unofficial" that she never appeared in any list of Annes household (pp. 186; n. 127). Direct evidence for Annes artistic inclinations was apparently so difficult to find that Winn at one point resorts to mentioning that Annes friend Sarah Churchill was interested in gardening and reading philosophy; apparently in hopes of establishing by association that Anne had the same interests (pp. 186-87). And it is striking to find; in a book dedicated to showing that Anne had a hitherto-overlooked passion for the arts; the admission that she paid "less public attention to the arts" as monarch than her uncle Charles II (p. 39).On one occasion; Winn; in his eagerness to identify anything that can be presented as an instance of Annes patronage; represents his source material in a way that can justifiably be described as misleading. This is found on pp. 187-88; where Winn makes the case that Anne was a supporter of the writer and advocate for female education Mary Astell. This claim is based on a passage from George Ballards 1752 Memoirs of Several Ladies of Great Britain; which states that a "certain great lady" had intended to donate a large sum of money in the 1690s to found a school for women along lines proposed by Astell but had later been dissuaded from doing so. Winn confidently identifies this anonymous "great lady" as (then) Princess Anne; and argues that Ballards story is generally reliable (despite dating from forty years after Annes death) because he received his information in a letter from Elizabeth Elstob; a friend of Mary Astell. However; a check of the cited source for this letter on p. 21 of Florence Mary Smiths 1916 biography of Mary Astell shows that Elstob actually wrote to Ballard: "I dont remember that I ever heard Mrs. Astell mention the good ladys name you desire to know." Winn does not make readers aware that the identification of Anne as the "great lady" is purely speculative; instead implying that Astells friend Elizabeth Elstob definitely identified her as such. One would never know from the information presented in this book that Elstob specifically denied knowing the identity of the lady in question. That such sleight of hand with the historical sources is necessary is further evidence of the weakness of the premise.Another unfortunate aspect of this books determination to reinvent Queen Anne as a passionate lover of the arts is its inaccurate portrayal of her immediate predecessors on the throne; her sister and brother-in-law William and Mary; who are presented here as indifferent to the arts in order to serve as the dark backdrop against which the "patroness of arts" Anne can shine more brightly by contrast. This is a portrayal that can only be sustained by ignoring William and Marys documented artistic interests. (Published works dealing with William and Marys interest in the arts include: J.G. Van Gelder; "The Stadholder-King William III as Collector and `Man of Taste" in William Mary and Their House; 1979; Lois Schwoerer "The Queen as Regent and Patron;" John Dixon Hunt "The Anglo-Dutch Garden;" and Martha Hamilton Phillips "Painting and Art Patronage in England" in The Age of William III and Mary II: Power; Politics and Patronage; 1989; Reiner Baarsen "The Court Style in Holland" and Gervase Jackson-Stops "The Court Style in Britain" in Courts and Colonies: The William and Mary Style in Holland; England; and America; 1988; Koenraad Jonckheere "`When the Cabinet from Het Loo Was Sold: The Auction of William IIIs Collection of Paintings; 26 July 1713" in Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art; Vol. 31 #3; 2004/5).One would never know from the way he is portrayed in this book that King William was an art collector; who amassed a fine collection of paintings and frequently discussed art with his secretary Constantijn Huygens (conversations that the latter recorded in his journal). Contemporary descriptions of Queen Mary contradict Winns claim that she paid "little attention to the arts or . . . intellectual improvement;" which he supplements with the sneering assertion that Marys fondness for handiwork points to a stunted personality (pp. 189-190). Bishop Gilbert Burnet; who knew Mary very well; recounted that she "had read the best books in the three languages that were almost equally familiar to her. She gave the most of her hours to the study of the Scriptures and of books relating to them. . . . Next to the best subjects; she bestowed most of her time on books of history; [and]. . . She was a good judge as well as a great lover of poetry." Burnet went on to relate that Mary used the intervals spent at the handiwork that Winn treats with so much scorn as opportunities for further intellectual improvement; as she would ask someone to read aloud "some book or poem that was lively; as well as instructing" (An Essay on the Memory of the Late Queen; 1695; pp. 45; 49; 52).Winns depiction of William and Mary is also overly reliant on questionable and biased sources. Several of the unflattering anecdotes about William and Mary related here have as their sole source the 1742 memoir of Annes erstwhile friend Sarah Churchill; the Duchess of Marlborough; who loathed both William and Mary and lost no opportunity of portraying them in a negative light (pp. 142; 170; 175; 181; 193; 229-30; 238-39). In addition to a general bias of tone; Winns ready acceptance of the derisive views of Anne and her circle about William and Mary leads to some statements that are demonstrably inaccurate; such as when Annes disparaging opinion of the state of the gardens at Kensington Palace at the time of William IIIs death in 1702 is taken as evidence of "Williams inattention to the arts; among which Anne certainly included gardening" (p. 297). William was in fact keenly interested in gardening; and his garden at Het Loo in the Netherlands was one of the most famous in Europe at the time. Williams interest in gardening is so well-known that it has been the subject of entire books by both his own contemporaries and modern historians (Walter Harris; A Description of the Kings Royal Palace and Gardens at Loo; 1699; David Jacques and Arend Jan van der Horst; The Gardens of William and Mary; 1988). Daniel Defoe in his 1724 Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain attributed the origin of the upper classes interest in collecting paintings and creating elaborate gardens to their imitation of King Williams example. It is worth noting that no contemporary said anything remotely similar about Queen Anne. Those whose only knowledge of William and Mary is taken from this book will come away with a completely distorted impression of them; which is extremely disappointing from a scholar of Dr. Winns standing.Winn claims that his book gives a more balanced picture of Queen Anne than the dismissive judgments of some earlier writers. It would be more accurate to say that this book simply goes to the opposite extreme in portraying Anne as a paragon of all virtues. Winn is loath to admit that Anne could have ever been in the wrong; or made a mistake; or acted from anything other than the purest and best of motives. Exaggerated claims about Annes artistic and intellectual interests; which go far beyond what the offered evidence supports; are the central elements of this hagiography. It is unfortunate that a book that includes so much valuable information about the relationship between the arts and politics during Annes life and reign is weakened considerably in being tied to this hyper-revisionist and ultimately unconvincing premise.